The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her age in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 56-year-old female. Petitioner has over 26 years of retail sales experience. Petitioner had both outside sales and store management experience, but most of her experience was as a retail floor salesperson. Petitioner worked as a salesperson at GM Appliance, a retail appliance business currently owned and operated by Respondent. She had worked for GM Appliance for over 21 years. Petitioner was a good and capable salesperson. She had never been formally reprimanded in her 21 years with GM Appliance. According to Respondent's owner and manager Todd Williams, there were no problems at all with Petitioner's performance. She was qualified as a salesperson. In 2004, Williams Corporation, a single shareholder entity owned by Mr. Williams, purchased GM Appliance from its previous owner, Curtis Murphy. Mr. Murphy was retiring after owning GM Appliance for many years. Mr. Williams had worked with Mr. Murphy as a wholesaler and was relocating to the Panama City area from Atlanta. At the time of the GM Appliance purchase, Mr. Williams was approximately 40 years old. As would be expected when taking over a business, Mr. Williams made some changes at GM Appliance. He created a new outside sales position. He created and hired a new sales manager. He opened two offices outside of Panama City. Mr. Williams made all the business decisions at GM Appliance. As he was the sole shareholder and owner, Mr. Williams had the sole authority to hire and fire employees. Under Mr. Williams, GM Appliance did not have any formal written employment policies. Respondent has no sexual harassment or anti-discrimination policies and no process on how to handle employment complaints related to age or sex. GM Appliance has no written employee evaluations or job descriptions. If someone had a complaint, he or she needed to "take it to the EEOC," according to Mr. Williams. As a result of Mr. Williams' hiring and firing decisions, the GM Appliance workforce became decidedly younger in Panama City, especially in the sales positions. Since purchasing GM Appliance through 2010, Mr. Williams hired Matt Davis (born 1970) as a sales manager; Ashley Williams (born 1976) in an outside sales position; Kris Westgate (born 1979) as inside sales and delivery; and Amy Farris (born 1982) as inside sales and administrative. In 2010, two sales persons also remained on the staff of GM Appliance from the former owner: Bobby Tew (aged 63) and Petitioner (aged 54). Both primarily worked inside sales. Mr. Williams' hiring decisions made the culture at GM Appliance more "youth" oriented. There was much more juvenile and sexual talk. Mr. Williams was overheard saying that Petitioner wore old women clothes. Some members of GM Appliance's younger workforce often called Petitioner "Mama" or "Old Mama" to her face and behind her back. As a result of the worldwide economic slowdown, the business environment deteriorated for GM Appliance in 2008. To save money, GM Appliance began to cut back on its operations and expenses. In late 2010, unable to stem the tide of losses, Mr. Williams decided he needed to cut additional staff from the sales department in Panama City. Of the six salespeople working in Panama City, he laid off the two oldest: Mr. Tew and Petitioner. The four younger sales persons kept their jobs, but one, Kris Westgate, was reassigned to the warehouse instead of laid off. Also, the two highest paid salespersons, Ashley Williams, Todd Williams' brother, and Matt Davis, remained employed with GM Appliance. Ashley Williams and Davis annually made $45,000 and $80,000, respectfully. Petitioner, at the final hearing, identified the three younger employees retained following her termination as evidence of discriminatory intent: Margaret Walden, Amy Farris, and Matt Davis. Matt Davis, aged 46, was the sales manager and Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Petitioner reported directly to Matt Davis. Amy Farris, aged 30, was originally hired as a secretary to the outside salesman. Although she would sometimes come on the sales floor, her job was to provide support for outside sales. During the course of her employment, her duties expanded to include purchasing agent and SPIFF (manufacturer's incentive program) administrator. Respondent employed outside salespersons and other salespersons (retail sales associates) such as Petitioner, who worked the showroom floor. Outside salespersons reported directly to Respondent's president, Mr. Williams. Margaret Walden, aged 45, was an outside salesperson in Respondent's office in Destin, Florida, and was responsible for developing and maintaining relationships outside the office with client contractors in Destin and South Walton County. A showroom was not maintained at the Destin office. All three identified co-workers held positions with different duties and responsibilities from the position held by Petitioner. Petitioner was not replaced, and no younger (or older) sales associate was retained in a similar position. In July 2011, Respondent hired 51-year-old Steve Williams as a sales associate. This hire was made after the Charge of Discrimination was filed by Petitioner. Steve Williams, a former Sears appliance salesman and manager, solicited a job with Respondent as Respondent had not advertised an available position. After being told repeatedly that Respondent was not hiring sales associates, he offered to accept compensation on a commissioned sales basis. Prior to terminating Petitioner, Respondent terminated six employees, ages 25 (outside sales), 27 (purchasing agent), 52 (warehouse/delivery), 41 (warehouse manager), 59 (accounting manager), and 45 (outside sales) from a period beginning on May 8, 2008, through July 31, 2009. Prior to discharge, Petitioner and the only other associate salesperson on the retail showroom floor, Mr. Tew, had their hours reduced to four days a week. In addition and during Petitioner's tenure, Respondent made changes in the corporation's 401-K plan, health insurance, paid leave, and overtime compensation all changes designed to save money. Mr. Tew was terminated on the same day as Petitioner, September 7, 2010. Janice Heinze (aged 66), Jeff Reeder (aged 54), and Angus Thomas (aged 70), all employees at the Panama City location and all older than Petitioner, were retained by the company. Respondent hired his father (a 1099 contractor), aged 68, to assume outside sales duties at the location in Foley, Alabama, and Cindy Powell, aged 54, was hired to answer the telephone there. Kelly Hill, aged 45, was hired to replace Ms. Walden upon her subsequent resignation and relocation. Petitioner and Mr. Tew were laid off with the intent to rehire. There were no performance or other identified issues with their employment. Mr. Williams stated that he wanted to bring them back to work. Petitioner had better objective sales qualifications than the younger salespeople that were retained. According to the latest records that GM Appliance had, Petitioner was the highest profit margin generating salesperson in Panama City. Mr. Tew had the second highest profit margin. Petitioner and Mr. Tew also had more sales experience and seniority than any of the younger retained workers. Petitioner earned approximately $40,000 in total over the past three years of her employment and has been unemployed since she was laid off in 2010.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding Respondent did not commit the "unlawful employment practice" alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel Harmon, Esquire Daniel Harmon, P.A. 23 East 8th Street Panama City, Florida 32401 Robert Christopher Jackson, Esquire Harrison Sale McCloy 304 Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 1579 Panama City, Florida 32402-1579 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in these two cases are whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ regulating real estate sales brokers, as alleged in the Administrative Complaints, by (1) failing to return a rental deposit to a potential tenant; (2) serving as the qualifying broker for Friendly International Realty, Inc. (“Friendly”), but failing to actively supervise Friendly’s operations and/or sales associates; failing to preserve Friendly’s transaction records and escrow account documents; and (4) acting in a manner that constitutes culpable negligence or a breach of trust. If there was a violation, an additional issue would be what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is the state agency that regulates the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165, and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Ms. King is a licensed real estate broker registered with the Department (license numbers BK 3203595, 3261628, 3293588, 3306619, 3335771, 3354773, and 3363985). Ms. King is registered with the Department as the qualifying broker for 16 brokerages located throughout the state of Florida. At all times relevant to this case, Ms. King’s registered address with the Department was 4430 Park Boulevard North, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781. Friendly International Realty, LLC Friendly was a Florida licensed real estate corporation, holding license number CQ 1040825. Records reflect that James Berthelot was the registered agent for Friendly at the time of incorporation, June 2011. At all times relevant, Mr. Berthelot was a licensed Real Estate Sales Associate (license number SL 3226474) registered with Friendly. In May 2014, Respondent drafted and entered into a Limited Qualifying Broker Agreement (“Broker Agreement”) with Friendly and its owner, Ivania De La Rocha.2/ Friendly and Ms. King entered into the Broker Agreement, “in order to comply with the requirements of the Florida Department of [Business and] Professional Regulation.” Under the terms of the Broker Agreement, Respondent was not paid by Friendly per transaction. Rather, Respondent agreed to serve as the “Corporate Broker of Record” in exchange for a payment of $300 a month “as a flat fee for any and all real estate business conducted by [Friendly].” The Broker Agreement also provided for a “late fee” penalty if Friendly was delinquent in this monthly payment. Section 1.1 of the Broker Agreement outlined Respondent’s duties to Friendly, requiring her to: (1) keep her and Friendly’s licenses active and in good standing under Florida law; (2) keep her other business interests separate from those involving Friendly’s interests; and (3) provide Friendly notice of any governmental inquiry involving her serving as Friendly’s broker. There was no mention in the Broker Agreement of either Respondent’s or Friendly’s responsibilities regarding oversight of transactions, training for sales associates, or day-to-day operations. Regarding document retention, the Broker Agreement provided: Section 9.0 AUDIT & REVIEW RIGHT: Broker shall have the right to enter [Friendly’s] offices upon reasonable advance written notice to verify compliance with the real estate laws of the State of Florida. There was no evidence that Ms. King ever provided Friendly with the kind of notice described in section 9.0 of the Broker Agreement. Although the Broker Agreement did not prohibit Friendly from holding funds or assets on behalf of third parties, section 10.0 (Miscellaneous) explicitly prohibited Friendly from operating an escrow account. (g) Escrow and Ernest Money Accounts. [Friendly] shall not be permitted to hold any escrow account(s). On July 31, 2014, Ms. King was registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, as “manager” of Friendly. Ms. King was the qualifying broker for Friendly (license number BK3303898) from August 6, 2014, through September 30, 2015, and November 4, 2015, through January 13, 2016.3/ During the time Ms. King served as the qualifying broker, Friendly operated from a number of addresses in Miami- Dade County, including 11900 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 292, Miami, Florida 33181; and 2132 Northeast 123rd Street, Miami, Florida 33181. The office door of the Friendly office located on Northeast 123rd Street was painted in large letters, “FRIENDLY INTERNATIONAL REALTY” and “ALICIA KING” painted underneath. At the hearing, when asked about Friendly’s address, Ms. King could only confirm that when she became the broker the office was “on Biscayne.” The Biscayne Boulevard address is the one listed on the Broker Agreement. At the hearing, Ms. King was wrong about when the Friendly office had moved from the Biscayne Boulevard to the Northeast 123rd Street location, insisting it was over the Christmas holidays in 2015. Records establish Friendly moved from the Biscayne Boulevard location to the Northeast 123rd Street location sometime between April and July 2014. In January 2016, Ms. King believed the office was still on Biscayne Boulevard. In reality, it had been over a year since the office had relocated to that location. At the hearing, when asked by her own counsel how many transactions a month Friendly handled, Ms. King replied, “That’s hard to say. It was not many at all. Ten, maybe.” Respondent could not give the exact number of employees or sales associates affiliated with Friendly; when asked, she stated she could not remember the exact amount, but knew it was “very limited.” Respondent did not have any agreements or documentation related to how many sales associates were registered under her broker’s license. Respondent could not name any other sales associates affiliated with Friendly while she was the qualifying broker, except for Mr. Berthelot. While she was Friendly’s qualifying broker, Respondent did not perform any of the training for the sales associates at Friendly. Respondent did not have any face-to-face meetings with any Friendly sales associates, except for Mr. Berthelot. Respondent did not have phone or e-mail contact with any of the Friendly sales associates, except for Mr. Berthelot. Respondent did not have copies of any forms, handbooks, reports or files related to Friendly. All of these documents were in paper form and kept in the Friendly office. Respondent had no access or signatory authority for any of Friendly’s bank accounts. Natalie James was a registered real estate sales associate affiliated with Friendly for approximately five months, from November 2015 through March 2016. Ms. James worked out of the Friendly office and was physically present at the office at least three or four times a week. Ms. James was involved in several rentals and one sales transaction while at Friendly. For each transaction she assembled a file, which was kept in the Friendly office. For rental transactions, Ms. James would negotiate and facilitate lease agreements. When she represented potential tenants, she received deposit funds that she deposited with Friendly. Ms. James attended meetings at Friendly; Ms. King was not present at any of them. Ms. James never had any telephonic, electronic, personal, or other contact with Respondent. While at Friendly, neither Mr. Berthelot nor any of Ms. James’ co-workers mentioned Ms. King to Ms. James. Although Ms. King’s name was on the door of Friendly’s office, Ms. James was unaware Ms. King was Friendly’s broker. There was conflicting testimony as to how often Respondent visited the Friendly office. Ms. King’s testimony at the hearing was at odds with the Department’s evidence and testimony regarding this issue. Ms. King insisted that while she was Friendly’s broker, she would travel from Pinellas Park to the Friendly office once or twice a week. This was not believable for a number of reasons. First, had Ms. King visited Friendly’s office as often as she stated, she would have known about the change in location; she did not. Second, Ms. King could not give one concrete date or detail about her travels to the Friendly office. Third, and most compelling, was the testimony of Ms. James (who worked at Friendly for at least two months while Ms. King was its broker) that she had never seen, communicated with, or heard mention of Ms. King while at Friendly. Ms. James’ unbiased and compelling testimony alone supports a finding that Ms. King did not visit the Friendly office as frequently as she indicated. Ms. King was aware that Friendly and Mr. Berthelot provided rental or “tenant placement” services.4/ Friendly collected security deposits and other move-in funds from potential renters and held them in an escrow account. Ms. King was not aware Friendly had an escrow account until January 2016 when she was contacted by the Department in an unrelated case. On January 13, 2016, Respondent resigned with the Department as the qualifying broker for Friendly effective that same day. On January 14, 2016, Respondent filed a complaint with the Department against Mr. Berthelot for operating an escrow account and collecting deposit funds without her knowledge. Facts Related to the Viton Case In November 2015, during the time Ms. King was Friendly’s qualifying broker, Christian Viton signed a lease agreement to rent an apartment located in Miami at 460 Northeast 82nd Terrace, Unit 8 (“Viton transaction”). The Viton lease agreement listed Friendly as the holder of the deposit monies and required Friendly to transfer the deposit and move-in funds to the owner of the property. Pursuant to the terms of the Viton lease agreement, Mr. Viton remitted an initial deposit of $500, and received a written receipt from Friendly dated November 2, 2015. Mr. Viton gave Friendly a second deposit of $380, and received a written receipt dated November 4, 2015. Mr. Viton never moved into the apartment and demanded a refund of his deposit from Friendly. On December 8, 2015, Friendly issued a check to Mr. Viton in the amount of $530. Three days later, Friendly issued a stop-payment order on the $530 check to Mr. Viton. On February 29, 2016, Mr. Viton filed a complaint with the Department seeking a return of the $880 he had given to Friendly. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation into Mr. Viton’s complaint and contacted Respondent. Upon learning about the Viton complaint, Ms. King contacted Mr. Berthelot who admitted Friendly had stopped payment on the $530 refund check, but had reissued the full amount of the deposit to a third-party not named on the lease. There is no evidence Mr. Viton ever received a refund of his $880 deposit. Facts Related to Dorestant Case In June 2015, during the time Ms. King served as Friendly’s qualifying broker, Cindy Dorestant entered into a lease agreement to rent a condominium located at 1540 West 191 Street, Unit 110 (“Dorestant transaction”). In the lease, Friendly was listed as the “broker” and holder of the deposit; TIR Prime Properties (“TIR”) was listed as the owner’s agent. The Dorestant lease agreement required Friendly to transfer the deposit and move-in funds collected from Ms. Dorestant to TIR. Pursuant to the terms of the Dorestant lease agreement, Ms. Dorestant gave Friendly $1,050 as an initial deposit, and received a written receipt dated June 24, 2015. In late July 2015, Ms. Dorestant contacted TIR’s property manager and sales agent to ask for information about the status of her move into the condominium. TIR explained to Ms. Dorestant that Friendly had not conveyed any of monies collected from Ms. Dorestant to TIR. Both Ms. Dorestant and TIR attempted to contact Friendly, but Friendly was non-responsive. The TIR sales associate relayed this information to TIR’s broker, Mariano Saal, who in turn tried to reach Friendly to resolve the issue. Eventually, TIR was told by Mr. Berthelot that Friendly would release the move-in funds to TIR and that Mr. Berthelot would schedule the move-in. TIR did not receive any funds from Friendly, nor did Mr. Berthelot facilitate Ms. Dorestant’s move into the condominium. On August 31, 2015, Mr. Saal contacted Mr. Berthelot and informed him that if TIR did not receive the move-in funds for the Dorestant transaction by 5:00 p.m. that day, it would be required to find another tenant. Ms. Dorestant did not move into the condominium and demanded a refund from Friendly and TIR. On September 14, 2015, Mr. Saal sent an e-mail to what he believed was Respondent’s address, demanding the $1,050 from Friendly because it considered Ms. Dorestant’s failure to move into the property a default of the lease agreement. Respondent, however, did not have access to Friendly’s e-mails. The e-mail was also sent to Mr. Berthelot, and Ms. De La Rocha. TIR did not receive any funds from Friendly for the Dorestant transaction. After discovering she could not move into the condominium because Friendly had not transferred the deposit to TIR, Ms. Dorestant demanded a refund of her deposit monies from Friendly. She did not receive it. On February 10, 2016, Mariano Saal, TIR’s qualifying broker, filed a complaint against Mr. Berthelot and Friendly with the Department regarding the Dorestant transaction. Ms. Dorestant initially did not receive a refund from Friendly and, therefore, filed a police report against Mr. Berthelot and sued him in small claims court. Eventually, Mr. Berthelot refunded Ms. Dorestant her deposit monies. Department Investigations of Friendly Upon receiving the Viton complaint, the Department assigned the case (DPBR Case No. 2016018731) to Erik Lluy, an Investigator Specialist II in the Miami field office. Similarly, on or around the same time the Department received the Dorestant complaint; it was also assigned to Mr. Lluy (DPBR Case No. 2016018069). On April 25, 2016, Mr. Lluy officially notified Ms. King of each of the complaints. On May 25, 2016, the Department transferred both the Viton and Dorestant complaints from Mr. Lluy to Percylla Kennedy. Ms. King provided a written response to both complaints via e-mail to Mr. Lluy on May 26, 2016. At that time, Mr. Lluy indicated the case had been transferred to Ms. Kennedy and copied Ms. Kennedy on the response. Ms. Kennedy was familiar with Friendly, Mr. Berthelot and Ms. King. In January 5, 2016, she had conducted an investigation of Friendly in an unrelated complaint filed against Friendly by Borys Bilan (“Bilan complaint”). As part of the investigation into the Bilan complaint, Ms. Kennedy arrived at the Friendly office address registered with the Department on Biscayne Boulevard to conduct an official office inspection. When she arrived, however, she found the office vacant. As a result, that same day Ms. Kennedy contacted the registered qualifying broker for Friendly–-Ms. King-–by phone. During that call, Ms. Kennedy asked Ms. King where Friendly’s office was located, but Ms. King did not know. Eventually, Ms. Kennedy determined the Friendly office had relocated to the Northeast 123rd Street location. Ms. Kennedy testified that during this call, Ms. King admitted to her that she had not been to the Northeast 123rd Street location. Respondent testified she did not tell Ms. Kennedy this and as proof insisted that the January call was inconsequential and “a very short call.” The undersigned rejects Respondent’s version of events and finds Ms. Kennedy’s testimony and report regarding the January 2016 interview more reliable. First, although Ms. King describes the conversation as occurring on January 7, 2016, both Ms. Kennedy’s testimony and the Inspection Report establish the conversation occurred on January 5, 2016. Second, Respondent’s characterization of the call as inconsequential contradicts her own May 26, 2016, written response to the Department in which Ms. King outlines a number of substantive issues discussed during this phone conversation, including: the nature of Friendly’s practice, whether Friendly had an escrow account, the type of payment accepted by Friendly, and the address of Friendly’s office. After speaking with Ms. King about the Bilan complaint, Ms. Kennedy conducted the inspection at Friendly’s Northeast 123rd Street location. Respondent was not present when Investigator Kennedy conducted the office inspection. Ms. Kennedy then e-mailed the Office Inspection form to Respondent. As a result of the January 5, 2016, phone conversation with Ms. Kennedy, Ms. King contacted Mr. Berthelot about the Bilan complaint. On January 13, 2016, Mr. Berthelot provided Ms. King with the transaction file related to the Bilan complaint. When Ms. King reviewed the lease agreement, she realized that Friendly was holding deposit funds in escrow. As a result, on December 13, 2016, Ms. King filed a resignation letter with the Department explaining she was no longer the qualifying broker for Friendly. Ms. King did not ask Mr. Berthelot or anyone else at Friendly for any other transaction records at this time, nor did she make any effort to review any of Friendly’s transaction files to determine whether Friendly had obtained other deposit funds or conducted other transactions similar to the one that was the subject of the Bilan complaint. After having knowledge of the Bilan complaint and transaction, and suspecting Friendly had been operating an escrow account, Ms. King made no immediate effort to access the operating or escrow bank accounts or reconcile the escrow account. After resigning as Friendly’s qualifying broker with the Department, Ms. King filed a complaint with the Department against Mr. Berthelot for unlicensed activity involving an escrow deposit.5/ Despite no longer being Friendly’s qualifying broker, on January 21, 2016, Ms. King executed and sent back to Ms. Kennedy the Inspection Report related to the Bilan complaint. Five months later, on or around May 25, 2016, Ms. Kennedy notified Ms. King she was taking over the investigation into the Viton and Dorestant cases. Ms. Kennedy testified that as part of her investigation into the Viton and Dorestant complaints, she interviewed Respondent again. Respondent denies she was interviewed by Ms. Kennedy regarding the Viton and Dorestant complaints, and instead insists she was only interviewed in January 2016 in connection with the Bilan complaint. Ms. King testified she believed Ms. Kennedy lied about interviewing her more than once because Ms. Kennedy was “lazy.” The undersigned rejects this assertion. Ms. Kennedy’s testimony was specific, knowledgeable, and credible, unlike Ms. King’s testimony, which was intentionally vague. Moreover, Ms. Kennedy specifically attributes her findings to specific sources such as Ms. King’s written response, her interview with Ms. King relating to the Viton and Dorestant transactions, and to her previous conversation with Ms. King during the Bilan investigation. The citations to information gleaned from the January 5, 2016, call were marked by the following sub-note. SUBJECT was previously interviewed by this Investigator in January 2016 for the unrelated complaint and was unaware that FRIENDLY INTERNATIONAL REALTY LLC had moved from license location 11900 Biscayne Blvd.[,] Suite 292 Miami, FL 33181 to 2132 NE 123ST[,] Miami, FL 33181 (See Ex. 9). At that time, SUBJECT was unable to provide the transaction file. Ms. Kennedy would have no reason to fabricate the source of the conclusions she reached in her report or the number of times she contacted Ms. King. Ms. Kennedy submitted her original investigative report to the Department for the Viton complaint on October 31, 2016. Per the Department’s request, Ms. Kennedy interviewed Mr. Viton and submitted a supplemental report on December 13, 2016. In this report, Ms. Kennedy determined that on February 25, 2016, Friendly issued a check in the amount of $875 to a person who was not listed on either the lease agreement, the receipts Friendly issued to Mr. Viton, or any other paperwork. Similarly, Ms. Kennedy submitted her original investigative report to the Department for the Dorestant complaint on October 31, 2016. Per the Department’s request, Ms. Kennedy interviewed Ms. Dorestant and submitted a supplemental report on December 13, 2016, indicating Ms. Dorestant did eventually receive a refund. During the course of the Viton investigation, Mr. Lluy and Ms. Kennedy requested that Respondent provide the Department with the file related to the Viton transaction, and documentation for Friendly’s escrow account. Although Respondent provided the Department a response (consisting of a written explanation with a copy of the Bilan file and some communications between Mr. Berthelot and herself from May 2016), she did not provide the Department with the transaction file related to the Viton transaction or Friendly’s escrow account documentation. During the course of the Dorestant investigation Mr. Lluy and Ms. Kennedy requested that Respondent provide the Department with the file related to the Viton transaction, and documentation for Friendly’s escrow account. Although Respondent provided the Department a response (consisting of a written explanation with a copy of the Bilan file and some communications between Mr. Berthelot and herself from May 2016), she did not provide the Department with the transaction file related to the Dorestant transaction or Friendly’s escrow account documentation. Professional Standards Mr. Saal, TIR’s qualifying broker, testified he had served as a broker for approximately ten years. As TIR’s qualifying broker, he kept the documentation related to the transactions handled by TIR’s six sales associates. The testimony of the TIR sales associate and property manager established that they relied on Mr. Saal for advice and to resolve issues. For example, when Ms. Dorestant began contacting TIR’s sales associate and property manager regarding the move-in and then for a refund of her deposit, the sales associate went to Mr. Saal to discuss the situation. Mr. Saal then attempted to resolve the issue by attempting to communicate with Friendly, Mr. Berthelot and Ms. King. Mr. Trafton, an experienced real estate broker and expert in brokerages, reviewed the Department’s investigative files and reports relating to the Viton and Dorestant complaints, as well as applicable Florida Statutes and rules. Mr. Trafton’s testimony and report established that in Florida the usual and customary standard applicable to brokers is that they must promptly deliver funds in possession of the brokerage that belong to others. Petitioner showed that Mr. Viton was entitled to a refund of his deposit from Friendly and that Respondent erred in not ensuring he received this refund. Mr. Trafton also testified that the standard of care applicable to a broker in supervising sales associates requires active supervision. “Active supervision” is not defined by statute or rule, but by usual and customary practices exercised statewide. “Active supervision” requires a broker to: have regular communications with all sales associates, not just communicating when there is a complaint; be aware of problems, issues and procedures in the office and among sales associates; have access to and signatory power on all operating and escrow accounts; hold regular scheduled office/sales meetings; conduct in–person training meetings; provide guidance and advice for sales associates; be intimately involved in how transaction forms and other documents are stored and retrieved; and be available to provide advice and direction on short notice. In other words, a broker should set the tone at the brokerage by overseeing her sales associates’ conduct of transactions. Ms. King failed to manage, direct, and control her real estate sales associate, Mr. Berthelot, to the standard expected of a qualifying broker in both the Viton and Dorestant transactions, if not all of Friendly’s transactions. She did not actively supervise Mr. Berthelot as a sales associate. Mr. Trafton also testified that a broker, not the brokerage, is ultimately responsible for preserving transaction files, forms related to transactions, and other related documents. Although less certain than Mr. Trafton about whether a broker or the brokerage firm is responsible for preservation of transaction files, Mr. Saal testified “the broker is responsible for the . . . transactions. It’s [the broker’s] client at the end of the day.” Ms. King failed to preserve accounts and records relating to Friendly’s accounts, the files related to the Viton and Dorestant rental transactions, or any other documents related to Friendly. Petitioner also clearly established that Respondent was guilty of either “culpable negligence” or “breach of trust” in the Viton or Dorestant transaction. As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of the Viton complaint through September 14, 2017, the Department incurred $1,625.25 in costs, not including costs associated with an attorney’s time. As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of the Dorestant complaint through September 14, 2017, the Department incurred $1,608.25 in costs, not including costs associated with an attorney’s time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission: Case No. 17-3989 Finding Respondent Alicia Faith King in violation of sections 475.25(1)(d)1., 475.25(1)(u), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(b), as charged in Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint in the Viton case. Imposing an administrative fine totaling $2,500 ($500 fine per count for Counts I, II and III; and $1,000 fine for Count IV). Imposing license suspension for a total period of nine months (one-month suspensions each for Counts I, II, and III; and a six-month suspension for Count IV). Imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case in the amount of $1,625.25. Case No. 17-3961 Finding Respondent Alicia Faith King in violation of sections 475.25(1)(u), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(b), as charged in Counts I through III of the Administrative Complaint in the Dorestant case. Imposing an administrative fine totaling of $2,000 ($500 fine per count for Counts I and II; and $1,000 fine for Count III). Imposing license suspension for a total period of eight months to be imposed consecutive to the suspension in Case No. 17-3989 (one-month suspensions each for Counts I and II; and a six-month suspension for Count III). Imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case in the amount of $1,608.75. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2018.
The Issue The threshold issue in this case is whether Petitioner knowingly and voluntarily waived all claims, including claims for employment discrimination, against Respondent, his former employer. If he did not, then the question is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his alleged disability when it terminated his employment.
Findings Of Fact A. Background Facts Petitioner Waldemar Casanova ("Casanova") is a high school graduate who has completed four years of college level courses in the field of business administration. As of the final hearing, he had worked in the airline industry for more than 30 years. In 1987, Casanova began working for Respondent Worldwide Flight Services ("Worldwide"), a ground handling services organization that specializes in, among other things, providing customized cargo, ramp, passenger, and technical services to various passenger and cargo airlines. Casanova was stationed in New York City for about 12 years, providing services to Worldwide's client, American Airlines, at the John Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports. In 1999, Casanova transferred to Florida, where he continued to work in furtherance of a contract between Worldwide and American Airlines to provide passenger services at the Fort Lauderdale Airport. Casanova initially was assigned to work as a Ramp Supervisor, in which position he was responsible for overseeing passenger baggage services. Thereafter, in the spring of 2002, Casanova was assigned to work as a Cabin Services Supervisor, in which position he was responsible for overseeing the cleaning and servicing of aircraft.1 Facts Relating to Casanova's Hernia Surgery In June 2002, Casanova underwent hernia surgery. He took a leave of absence from work to recover. A couple of months later, Casanova's doctor certified that Casanova could return to "light" work duties on September 3, 2002. The doctor's certificate specified that, upon his return to work, Casanova should not lift more than 10 pounds. To accommodate this restriction, when Casanova returned to work in September 2002, Worldwide reassigned him, temporarily, to its administrative office, where Casanova was responsible for reviewing attendance records. Cancellation of the Contract Between American Airlines and Worldwide and the Consequences Thereof On Casanova's Employment with Worldwide. Effective September 15, 2002, American Airlines canceled its ramp-handling/cabin services contract with Worldwide at the Fort Lauderdale Airport. As a result, Worldwide laid off approximately 33 employees in September and October 2002, including Casanova and five or six other supervisors who, like Casanova, were employed in connection with the American Airlines contract. By letter dated September 18, 2002, Worldwide informed Casanova that he was being laid off. In that letter, Worldwide offered Casanova a lump sum severance payment equaling 13 weeks of pay at his base salary in exchange for, and subject to, Casanova's execution of a Severance Agreement and General Release ("Agreement"). The Agreement was enclosed with the September 18, 2002 letter. The release contained in the Agreement provided, in pertinent part: I agree . . . to release Worldwide . . . from any and all claims for relief of any kind, whether known to me or unknown, which in any way arise out of or relate to my employment or the termination of my employment at Worldwide Flight Services, concerning events occurring at any time up to the date of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, any and all claims of discrimination of any kind. This settlement and waiver includes all such claims, whether under any applicable federal law, including but not limited to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Americans with Disabilities Act, Equal Pay Act and Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Older Worker Benefit Protection Act, or under any applicable state or local laws I further agree not to file a claim or suit of any kind against Worldwide Flight Services et al. . . . I further agree not to bring, continue, or maintain any legal proceedings of any nature whatsoever against Worldwide Flight Services et al. before any court, administrative agency, arbitrator or any other tribunal or forum by reason of any such claims, demands, liabilities and/or causes of action, arising out of, relating to or resulting from my employment or termination from employment . . . . In the September 18, 2002, letter, Worldwide also advised Casanova that the decision whether to accept the terms and conditions of the Agreement was completely voluntary, that he should consult with an attorney of his choice before signing the Agreement, and that he could take up to 45 days to consider the Agreement. In addition, Worldwide advised Casanova that, if he had any questions concerning his separation package, he could consult either with Alvin Brown, a human resources representative at Worldwide's corporate headquarters, or Barry Simpson, then General Manager at Worldwide's Fort Lauderdale station. Casanova signed and dated the Agreement on October 2, 2002.2 He then returned the instrument to Worldwide, where Barry Simpson executed the Agreement on the company's behalf, also on October 2. By the terms of the Agreement, Casanova was afforded a period of up to seven days after execution of the Agreement to revoke the acceptance of its terms. At no time during the seven-day revocation period did Casanova notify Worldwide that he wanted to revoke his acceptance of the Agreement. After the expiration of the seven-day revocation period, and in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, Casanova received a lump sum payment of $8,091.20 by check dated October 26, 2002, which sum constituted 13 weeks of severance at Casanova's base salary.3 Since his receipt of this payment, Casanova has neither tendered back nor attempted to tender back the severance payment to Worldwide. At hearing, Casanova admitted that he had understood fully the language and effect of the Agreement, including the release of all claims, and that he knowingly and voluntarily had accepted the terms of the Agreement as well as the benefits provided to him thereunder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing with prejudice Casanova's Petition for Relief because, for valuable consideration, Casanova knowingly and voluntarily released Worldwide of and from any claims arising out of his employment with Worldwide. Alternatively, the final order should declare that Worldwide is not liable to Casanova because (a) he is not a handicapped individual and (b) even if he were a handicapped individual, Worldwide has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Casanova's discharge, which Casanova failed to prove was a pretext for discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2005.
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a preneed sales agent should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following relevant Findings of Fact are made. Petitioner seeks a license as a preneed sales agent so that she may work at Good Shepherd Memorial Gardens Funeral Home (“Good Shepherd”). Petitioner plans to work as a family service advisor to help families with preneed services. A preneed sales agent assists families with planning for funeral or burial needs prior to death. Petitioner anticipates she would conduct meetings with potential customers at the cemetery or in their homes. Petitioner worked with Good Shepherd from January 2018 until June 2018. Although Petitioner is currently not employed at the funeral home, she anticipates that Good Shepherd would allow her to return to work if her application for licensure is approved. Respondent is the state entity responsible for regulating licensure of persons who provide preneed sales services under chapter 497, Florida Statutes. When applying for any license under chapter 497, Respondent considers whether the applicant has a criminal record. An applicant must disclose any felony offense that was committed within 20 years immediately preceding the application. The Board then considers the applicant’s criminal history and whether the applicant would pose an unreasonable risk to members of the public who might deal with the applicant in preneed transactions. Petitioner has a criminal history involving an incident that occurred two years ago. In September 2016, Petitioner’s husband placed Petitioner’s then eight-year-old daughter in a dog cage because the daughter had allegedly mistreated the family dog. Petitioner returned home from work, found her daughter in the dog cage, and removed her. In a separate but related incident, Petitioner watched her husband take her daughter to her bedroom. Petitioner entered the daughter’s bedroom and saw her husband spanking her child with a flip-flop sandal on her behind. At no point did Petitioner attempt to protect her daughter from her husband’s abusive actions or report him to the appropriate authorities. The abuse was ultimately reported by a roommate who lived in the home. On June 12, 2017, Petitioner (age 28) pled nolo contendere to one count of child neglect without great bodily harm, a third-degree felony, in violation of sections 827.03(1)(e) and 827.02(2)(d), Florida Statutes. The court sentenced Petitioner to: one day of jail time with credit for time served, probation for 24 months, 100 hours of community service (within the 18 months of probation), and peaceful contact with her daughter. Petitioner was also ordered to pay court costs and fees and fines in the amount of $937.00. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. Petitioner’s husband, who was not the child’s biological father, pled guilty to two counts of child abuse without great bodily harm. Among other things, he was ordered to have no contact with the child. Prior to the criminal offense at issue in this matter, Petitioner had no criminal history. In addition, Petitioner has had no known contact with law enforcement since the criminal offense. In a Notice of Intent to Deny issued on April 26, 2018, Respondent notified Petitioner that her application for a preneed sales agent license had been denied as follows: On June 7, 2017, Ms. Hoff pled no contest to a felony charge of child neglect without great bodily harm and was sentenced to 24 months of probation, 100 hours community service, assessed court costs and fines in the amount of $937.00, and her parental rights were terminated. The [A]pplicant stated that her criminal probation will not be completed until June 2019. The Applicant stated that she has not yet paid the fines and fees assessed in this [criminal] matter. The Applicant stated that she is still married to the gentleman she was married to at the time of the arrest. This gentleman was involved in the criminal allegations of child neglect. On May 1, 2018, Petitioner timely requested a hearing disputing the factual basis for the denial of licensure. Petitioner has completed 40 hours of the 100 hours community service requirement. She anticipates that she may be eligible for early termination of her probation after she completes the community service hours. Petitioner did not present any evidence of community service other than court- ordered community service. Prior to submitting her application, Petitioner completed approximately 150 to 175 hours of training in preneed sales, covering family planning, death certificates, Veterans Affair benefits, types of burial products, and financial plan development. Petitioner provided no explanation regarding why she did not protect her daughter from abuse. In addition, Petitioner continues to live with her husband and indicated that she has not yet divorced him due to financial reasons. Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence to meet her burden to prove that she is not a danger to the public.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Funeral, Cemetery, and Consumer Services enter a final order denying Shayla Hoff’s application for licensure as a preneed sales agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent County is guilty of an unlawful employment practice pursuant to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is female, and within a class protected by Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent County is an "employer" within the meaning of Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner claimed that Respondent treated her disparately from male employees on the basis of her gender in the areas of pay during her probationary period, reprimands and discipline, provision of equipment, poor performance evaluations, and training. Petitioner's initial relationship with Respondent was as an independent contractor at Respondent's Sanitary Landfill under a written contract entered into on September 15, 1989. In this capacity, she acted as a "spotter." As an independent contractor, she received $250 per month and salvage rights to whatever material customers brought to the Respondent's Sanitary Landfill. Effective August 14, 1990, the State Division of Personnel and Retirement required Respondent to put all contractual people on the County payroll. Thereafter, Petitioner was paid $350 per month and continued to have salvage rights only at the sufferance of the Respondent. After that date, Petitioner earned retirement and social security benefits. Withholding of federal taxes and deduction of social security benefits were also provided.(P-12). The value of the salvage rights were never calculated by anyone. While she was employed as a "spotter," Petitioner was the only female "spotter." Petitioner was on probation as an employee from August to December 1990. Petitioner was paid $1.442 per hour from August 12, 1990 through October 1990, and $1.63 per hour from October 1990 through December 3, 1990. At that time, her rate of pay was raised to $3.85 per hour. The record contains no evidence of what was paid to any male employee similarly situated during this period. Without proof that similarly situated male spotters were consistently paid better, there is no proof of gender discrimination in pay during Petitioner's probationary period.3 Mark Hawes, a male, was hired as a spotter on June 1, 1993. He was paid $4.35 per hour while on probation. Willie George, also male, was hired as a spotter on October 1, 1993, and was paid $4.4805 per hour while on probation. There is no evidence of how much Petitioner was being paid during this period, so there is no means of assessing disparate treatment in pay, if any, during this period.4 During the period that Petitioner was employed as a "spotter," there was no statute or rule requiring that "spotters" receive formalized training or be certified in any field. During Petitioner's employment, no spotter were provided more than a printed Job Description and on-the-job oral instructions. They were expected to use courtesy and common sense in dealing with the public. Two employees (gender unspecified) who were not spotters were sent to train at a state "school" to become Certified Landfill Operators. A State Rule was enacted after Petitioner was terminated which required that all spotters must have eight hours of specialized training. Thereafter, the Respondent provided such training to spotters. At all times material to any Personnel Citations, Petitioner was a union member, and all benefits of her union's collective bargaining agreement with the Respondent accrued to her. No performance evaluations were submitted in evidence. With the exception of the events related within the following findings of fact, no witness found any fault with Petitioner in the performance of her job description as a "spotter" at Respondent's landfill. (P-1) Wayne Hardee, Director of the Landfill, issued a Personnel Citation against Petitioner early in her employment on the basis of lack of personal hygiene. The citation was later removed from Petitioner's personnel file as an act of good will. On or about January 16, 1994, Petitioner admitted to an immediate supervisor that her carelessness with a hand-held CB radio had resulted in loss of the radio. She offered to pay for the radio. Mr. Hardee did not require her to pay for the radio, but issued a written Personnel Citation to her on January 20, 1994 for her carelessness. This Personnel Citation simultaneously cited Petitioner because Mr. Hardee had received complaints that Petitioner was overly concerned about other spotters doing their jobs. In this Personnel Citation, Mr. Hardee warned Petitioner to do her job without complaining about other employees. Petitioner admitted that she signed this citation and that she did not grieve it through her union. The radio was later recovered, but the citation remained in Petitioner's personnel file. (P-2) On Saturday, July 9, 1994, Petitioner called her union's senior shop steward, Jessie Ellzey, to the landfill to complain about items left at her spotter station. Mr. Ellzey's perception was that Petitioner was accusing another employee of putting the items in the wrong place. Petitioner also told Mr. Ellzey that another employee had threatened her. After investigation and interviews the following week, Mr. Ellzey and Mr. Hardee determined that the items had been brought by a landfill customer to the landfill between shift changes. Mr. Hardee's and Mr. Ellzey's perception was that Petitioner had unfairly complained about another spotter, Willie George, not doing his job. At least three days and two meetings were involved in this investigation and counseling procedure. Mr. Hardee issued a written Personnel Citation against Petitioner for complaining about a co-employee. (P-3) Petitioner also was suspended without pay for one day and warned that if the problem was not corrected, further disciplinary action would be taken against her. Petitioner did not grieve this citation through her union. Based on all of Mr. Ellzey's credible testimony, due to reputation testimony about Mr. Ellzey's standard operating procedure, and because Petitioner was actually suspended for one day without pay, I reject as not credible Petitioner's testimony that she never knew of this citation in time to grieve it. On August 13, 1994, Ann Harrell, a landfill customer, filed a written complaint of rudeness against Petitioner. (P-9) A written complaint of rudeness by Petitioner was also filed by another customer, Mr. Richburg, at about the same time. Mr. Hardee considered courtesy to customers to be an unstated policy of County government and further perceived rudeness to customers to be an on-going problem in Petitioner's relationship with the public. Due to the foregoing written complaints and many similar oral complaints he had received, Mr. Hardee assigned Petitioner two days' suspension without pay by a written Personnel Citation issued August 15, 1994. The citation also warned Petitioner she would be terminated if there were another complaint about her. Petitioner refused to sign this citation. (P-4) On August 25, 1994, Petitioner grieved the August 15, 1994 Personnel Citation through her union. (P-5) A hearing was held in response to Petitioner's grievance. All concerned agree that Mr. Ellzey, the union representative advocating Petitioner's position, and not a representative of management, kept Petitioner from testifying. Chester Humphries testified on Petitioner's behalf at the grievance hearing that he had been unable to hear what Mr. Richburg said but could hear what Petitioner said to Mr. Richburg. From this, Mr. Hardee inferred that Petitioner had raised her voice to Mr. Richburg. Mr. Hardee assessed Petitioner's character witnesses in Petitioner's favor but noted that they knew nothing about the specific incident between Petitioner and Mr. Richburg. Ultimately, Mr. Hardee relied on Mr. Richburg's testimony concerning the incident. (P-6) Mr. Hardee denied Petitioner's grievance and disciplined Petitioner in accord with the August 15, 1994 Personnel Citation. Upon advice of her union steward, Petitioner did not appeal the grievance hearing result. It was further agreed that if Petitioner's behavior resulted in no more complaints against her for 30 working days, the August 15, 1994, citation would be removed from her personnel file. Petitioner met this requirement, and the citation was removed from her personnel file. (P-6; P-7). Petitioner's December 13, 1994, charge of discrimination before the Florida Commission on Human Relations listed August 11, 1994, as the last date of alleged discrimination. No witness at formal hearing herein, including Mr. Ellzey and Mr. Humphries, both of whom also had been present at the grievance hearing, confirmed Petitioner's perception that her gender had affected the result of her grievance hearing. Another female employee (not a landfill spotter) currently works in Respondent's administrative offices. That female employee also has had employment disputes with Mr. Hardee which she attributes to his gender bias, but the type of dispute was not clearly specified on this record. Therefore, no similarity to Petitioner's situation can be discerned and no pattern of gender bias was proven on that basis. This female employee is still employed by Respondent. A different female employee (also not a spotter) employed by Respondent's Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was terminated by Mr. Bill Beddow, EMS Director, for failing to timely report (or complain about) her immediate supervisor for "doing something [Mr. Beddow] thought he shouldn't be doing with drugs." The male supervisor resigned for "personal reasons." The female employee was rehired by Mr. Beddow after intercession by her union. This means another female not similarly situated to Petitioner was terminated for not complaining about a male employee's job performance and was then hired back, whereas Petitioner was progressively disciplined with reprimands and suspensions for repetitive unsubstantiated complaints about male employees' job performances. Petitioner seeks to have the conclusion drawn that female employees were disciplined both for reporting and for not reporting male employees' misbehavior. However, the two isolated situations are so dissimilar as to develop no pattern recognizable at law. I accept as credible and unrefuted Petitioner's testimony that all of the complaints she initiated about other employees were oral. However, Petitioner's testimony that she did not complain about other employees' performance of, or failure to perform, their jobs and her assertion that her complaints were only motivated by the requirements of her Job Description to "inspect loads" and "report all problems" was not corroborated by any other witness. Petitioner's testimony that her concerns were directed not at individual employees but at addressing hazardous wastes also was not corroborated by any other witness.5 Petitioner's middle level supervisor acknowledged that Petitioner told him that other employees had improperly handled hazardous materials as well as non-hazardous materials but that he did not cite anyone as a result of Petitioner's complaints about hazardous wastes because it was impossible to prove who was responsible. He counseled all subordinates about each incident whenever he considered counseling appropriate. Otherwise, all witnesses with reason to know the situation generally acknowledged that Petitioner's oral complaints were recurring almost daily and were directed to other employees' job performances rather than hazardous materials. It is the repetitive and personal nature of Petitioner's complaints rather than their being oral that management found offensive. The evidence also generally shows that all employees orally complained about each other and that Petitioner's two immediate supervisors, Felippe McCelroy and Robert Murray, orally reprimanded everybody who complained or who was complained about as they each saw fit within their supervisory discretion on individual occasions. No gender pattern is to be discerned from the foregoing. Only on those occasions that either an oral or written complaint reached Mr. Hardee was anyone written up and/or disciplined. Petitioner complained about not being assigned or provided with one of Respondent employer's trucks when other male employees were provided trucks. With the exception of the following findings related to the Respondent's trucks, there is no relevant evidence in this record concerning employees' use of trucks. All employees were cautioned against carelessness. Tommy Dean, a male employee, dented one of Respondent's trucks. He was not disciplined for careless driving. There is no evidence the dent was caused by Mr. Dean's careless driving. In February 1995, Charles Kennedy, a male spotter, filed a written complaint or incident report. Therein, he claimed that Petitioner had attempted to prohibit his bulldozing landfill material out of the way because Petitioner was trying to remove salvageable items. He further alleged that Petitioner had thrown a jar of grease at him. Petitioner was requested to file a written account of the incident. In her written account, she basically admitted the incident but not any intent to hit Mr. Kennedy with the grease jar. Mr. Kennedy was not disciplined for filing the written complaint/report. Petitioner was not disciplined for the actions complained about by Mr. Kennedy. Instead, as of February 3, 1995, landfill spotters were prohibited from salvaging at the landfill. (P-13) Petitioner desires that the conclusion be drawn that male spotters who complained in writing about other employees were not disciplined for complaining but that Petitioner, a female, was disciplined for making oral complaints. However, it appears Respondent addressed Mr. Kennedy's written complaint in much the same way as it had addressed Petitioner's oral complaint against Willie George, by giving each participant in the dispute a chance to state his or her position, before management decided who should be disciplined. The difference was that Mr. Kennedy was not a chronic complainer and management's investigation revealed some fault on both sides, so a neutral solution was found rather than discipline being imposed. There is no evidence beyond Petitioner's assertion that she was ever asked to do more work or heavier work than male spotters. From this point on, the dates that events occurred or their chronology is not entirely clear from the record. However, approximately April 14, 1995, there was an occasion when Petitioner was asked to move metal pieces in a wheelbarrow-sized pile over a three-hour period. The largest piece weighed 21 pounds. The next day, Petitioner reported a workers' compensation back injury or aggravation. She was then off work until approximately May 11, 1995, when she returned to "light duty." She worked for awhile for only four hours per day. Respondent hired someone to help her. It is disputed whether Petitioner was reinjured or whether Mr. Hardee just sent her home. However, on or about July 8, 1995, Mr. Hardee discussed the situation with "the workers' compensation people," and it was agreed there was not enough light duty work for Petitioner. Three months later, Petitioner returned to full duty. Because a spotter had been hired to do her work, Petitioner was assigned to a variety of jobs. She worked at the dog pound, the recycling building, and even washed Mr. Hardee's truck.6 One day, Petitioner's immediate supervisor ordered her to cut out the top of a metal drum. At formal hearing, Petitioner asserted that this was heavier work than she should have been required to do on light duty, but there is no evidence the supervisor's order was motivated by gender bias. There also is no evidence a full-time male spotter was never required to do similarly heavy work. Petitioner advised her supervisor that she had hurt her arms and elbows and she went home on sick leave. Petitioner had complained over the term of her employment about not being provided one of Respondent's trucks so that she could conveniently get from her sector of the landfill to a restroom. After her workers' compensation injury, Respondent arranged for male employees to drive Petitioner to the restroom. Eventually, Respondent provided Petitioner with a portable toilet in her work sector. Mr. Hardee maintained that no spotter had ever been assigned a truck but that all spotters, including Petitioner, had access to one. There is evidence to show that male employees drove the trucks and Petitioner did not, but insufficient evidence to show this was an active management decision or that Mr. Hardee acquiesced in male employees preempting trucks as a result of any gender bias. On or about November 13, 1995, Petitioner informed Mr. Hardee that she was permanently physically disabled and would have to be on light duty indefinitely. After consultation with his "workers' compensation people," Mr. Hardee terminated Petitioner as of that date. 7 At formal hearing, Petitioner admitted Respondent was still paying her workers' compensation benefits and that her workers' compensation claim has not been settled.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding no discrimination and dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Qablawi Auto Sales, discriminated against Petitioner, Carmen R. Cuevas, on the basis of her disability (hearing loss) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a woman who wears hearing aids. She provided no explanation for her hearing loss other than the fact that she was “hard of hearing.” No medical documentation was introduced by Petitioner to substantiate her claim of hearing loss, but it appeared she struggled at times to hear clearly. Respondent owns a small used auto sales business located in Cocoa, Florida. The manager of his business is James Devore. Some time in early October 2011, Petitioner came into the auto sales store to make a payment on a car she had purchased from the store. During a conversation with the store manager, Petitioner stated that she was looking for a job. The manager suggested that there may be an opening for her at the store. Petitioner filled out an employment application and it was submitted to Qablawi for review. An interview was conducted, and Petitioner was hired as a web sales agent. Qablawi said that he agreed to hire Petitioner because he liked her personality and she seemed able to do the required work. Petitioner told Qablawi about her hearing issues, but he advised her that the phones were state of the art, that there would be other people in the same office, and that he believed she would not have any problems. Petitioner said she had worked in a marketing job for nine years and had no problems using the telephone in that position. When Petitioner started work, she was trained by an employee named Jessica who was being promoted to another job. The training was conducted at Jessica’s desk within the office. The office was a small open room with five or six desks situated around the room. There was another web sales agent at one of the desks; the others belonged to the manager and outside car salesmen. Each desk had a computer and a telephone with each of those items “coded” to a specific employee. After her training was complete, Petitioner continued to work at Jessica’s desk for the remainder of the first week. When she came in the second week, she was assigned a new desk. The parties disagree as to where in the office the new desk was located: Petitioner said the desk was located right next to the door which was used for ingress and egress by employees and customers. The manager said her desk was right next to the desk where she had been trained. Upon review of all the evidence, the manager’s testimony (confirmed by Qablawi) is more credible. The two web sales agent desks were in one section of the office, the outside car salesmen desks were in another. Thus, it is most likely that Petitioner’s assigned desk was close to Jessica’s desk. On Saturday, October 15, 2011, Petitioner started her business day working at Jessica’s desk. When she returned to work after lunch that day, she found that she had been moved over to the next desk. She finished her work day, but felt like the new work space was not as preferable as Jessica’s desk. The two desks were basically side by side in an L-shape. On Monday, October 17, 2011, when Petitioner reported to work she placed her handbag, lunch, and other personal items on the desk just inside the front door. She then went to the manager and asked if she could be moved to Jessica’s old desk. Jessica had by that time moved on to her new position. The manager explained that her assigned work space was “coded” for her and that she needed to work in that space. Petitioner objected to the new work space on the basis that it was near a door and that she would be bothered by all the coming and going of employees and customers. (However, during her sworn testimony, Petitioner said that there was not much traffic in the office and she often worked in the room alone or with one other person.) The manager denied her request and said that Petitioner had to work where she was assigned. In response, Petitioner told the manager that if she could not work at the desk she wanted, she would leave. The manager called Qablawi and told him what had transpired. Qablawi said that if that was Petitioner’s decision, he could not do anything about it. When advised as to what Qablawi said, Petitioner asked for a ride back to her car and left the office. Petitioner did not call Qablawi or the manager after leaving the store. She did not inquire of Qablawi whether any accommodations could be made. Petitioner did not submit a letter of resignation, nor did she make any complaint about discrimination of any kind. Approximately one month later, Petitioner woke up to find that her car was missing. She called Qablawi to ask whether he had repossessed it because she was behind on payments. She understood that her car would be repossessed and did not object to that happening. Her call to Qablawi was simply to make sure he had the car and that it had not been stolen. Qablawi had been trying to help Petitioner by allowing late and short payments, but she still could not keep up. A short time later, Qablawi found out that Petitioner had filed a complaint against him for discrimination. An appeals referee from the Agency for Workforce Innovation conducted a hearing to discuss Petitioner’s complaint. During that hearing, Qablawi offered Petitioner her job back, but she did not accept his offer. No such offer was made at the final hearing in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying Petitioner, Carmen R. Cuevas's Petition for Relief in full. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 2012.
The Issue Should Petitioner, Charles Caputo's, application for a real estate sales associate license be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is an applicant for licensure as a real estate sales associate. His application was filed on November 3, 2007. Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing real estate professionals in the State of Florida and has the statutory authority to approve or deny Petitioner's application. Petitioner's application revealed the following record of criminal involvement: Driving "while ability impaired"-- December 21, 1987, Suffolk County, New York. (This is a civil infraction based on a plea to the initial charge of Driving Under the Influence.) Petit Theft--August 29, 1991, St. Cloud, Florida. Burglary--July 27, 1997, Orange County, Florida. (Adjudication withheld.) Passing a Bad Check--March 17, 1998. Trespass After Warning--November 13, 2002, Orange County, Florida. When Petitioner applied for a license in 2005, he only disclosed two offenses. On August 7, 2008, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for real estate sales associate licensure. The stated reasons listed in the Notice of Intent to Deny are "Failure to Disclose," "Unpersuasive Testimony," "Crimes Recent," and "Pattern of Crime." In addition, the Notice of Intent to Deny concludes that Petitioner failed "to demonstrate honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character, a good reputation for fair dealing, competent and qualified to conduct transactions and negotiations with safety to others"; that Petitioner was "guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction"; and that Petitioner had been "convicted or found guilty or entered a plea of nolo contender to, regardless of adjudication, a crime which directly relates to the activities of a licensed broker or sales associate or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealings." Finally, the Notice of Intent to Deny concludes that Petitioner "has not had sufficient lapse of time, without government supervision, to establish rehabilitation by being crime free." The several "character" witness presented by Petitioner were not well-informed regarding Petitioner's criminal history, and while they apparently thought well of him, their testimony was not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Charles Caputo's, application for real estate sales associate licensure be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: S. W. Ellis, Chairman Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801 N Orlando, Florida 32801 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. 1420 Celebration Boulevard, Suite 200 Celebration, Florida 34747
The Issue Did Respondent, Ricoh Americas Corporation, (Ricoh), discriminate against Petitioner, Tamara Gleason (Ms. Gleason), because of her gender by demoting her? Did Ricoh retaliate against Ms. Gleason for complaining about gender discrimination?
Findings Of Fact Ricoh is in the business of selling and servicing document imaging and output equipment, including copiers, fax machines, printers, and related supplies and services such as software, paper, and toner. Ricoh has locations across the United States. Ms. Gleason worked for Ricoh from August 2008 until she resigned on March 31, 2010. She worked in its East Florida Marketplace. That area covers the eastern part of Florida from Jacksonville to Miami. In 2008, and at all times relevant to this proceeding, Al Hines (Mr. Hines) was the East Florida Marketplace manager. His responsibilities included supervising sales personnel and meeting sales quotas. Mr. Hines has worked for Ricoh in various positions for over 31 years. He is based in Ricoh's Maitland, Florida, office near Orlando. In 2008, the organizational structure of the East Florida Marketplace consisted of two group sales managers, one in Central Florida and one in South Florida. These group sales managers reported directly to the Marketplace Manager Mr. Hines. They oversaw sales managers who in turn supervised the various account executives. Also, one sales manager in Jacksonville reported directly to Mr. Hines. The group sales managers and sales managers were responsible for supervising the sales personnel, consisting of major account executives, senior account executives, and account executives. Ricoh assigned major account executives to work with specific large client accounts. Senior account executives were more experienced sales representatives. Senior account executives and account executives were assigned territories. Daytona Beach or a series of zip codes are examples of territories. Ricoh also assigned "vertical markets" for a specific industry, such as "faith-based" institutions to an Account Executive. Ms. Gleason applied and interviewed for an account executive position in the central Florida area of the East Florida Marketplace in August 2008. Mr. Hines, General Sales Manager Cecil Harrelson, and Sales Manager Anthony Arritt interviewed Ms. Gleason. On her resume and in her interview, Ms. Gleason represented that she had 20 years of experience as a sales representative in the office equipment field. Her resume stated that she was "[p]roficient in all areas relating to sales and leasing of copiers, printers, scanners, fax machines and various software solutions. Consistently exceeded sales quota." After the interview, Mr. Hines decided to hire Ms. Gleason for Mr. Harrelson's team. Ricoh hired Ms. Gleason as a senior account executive on August 11, 2008. Mr. Hines initially assigned her to work in the vertical "faith-based" market. In September 2008, a sales manager position for the Daytona Beach/Melbourne territories, overseen by Mr. Hines, opened. Three males applied for the position. Ms. Gleason did not apply. Mr. Hines asked Ms. Gleason if she would be interested in being considered for promotion to sales manager. Although Ms. Gleason had no prior management experience and had only worked for Ricoh for two months, Mr. Hines believed that she would be good in the position and asked her to consider it. Ms. Gleason accepted Mr. Hines' proposal. On September 30, 2008, Mr. Hines promoted her to sales manager. Ricoh provided Ms. Gleason manager training. In April and May of 2009, Ricoh restructured its sales positions. Ricoh changed group sales manager positions to strategic account sales manager positions. It removed all major account executives from teams supervised by sales managers and placed them on the teams supervised by the strategic account sales managers. In central Florida, the reorganization resulted in Cecil Harrelson being moved from general sales manager to strategic account sales manager. The major account executives on Ms. Gleason's team (Mary Cobb, David Norman, and Patrick Mull) and Arritt's team (Todd Anderson and Lynn Kent) were moved onto the new team supervised by Harrelson. All of the major account executives in the East Florida Market supervised by Mr. Hines were transferred to strategic account sales manager teams. On average, the sales managers in the East Florida Marketplace each lost two major account executives due to the reorganization. Mr. Hines required all of the sales managers to hire new sales personnel to bring the number of sales personnel on their teams to expected levels. This is known as maintaining "headcount." Ms. Gleason knew of this requirement. Also it was not new. The responsibility to maintain headcount pre-existed the reorganization. From the time of her hire until early 2009, around the time that the Company reorganized its sales positions, Ms. Gleason had no issues with Mr. Hines or complaints about his management. As a sales manager, Ms. Gleason bore responsibility for supervising a team of sales personnel and for ensuring that her team members met their monthly sales quotas. In addition, Ms. Gleason was responsible for maintaining the headcount on her team. Mr. Hines assigned monthly sales quotas for sales managers. He based the quotas on the types of sales representatives on each team. The monthly quota for major account executives was $75,000. For senior account executives, the monthly quota was $40,000. The monthly quota for account executives was $30,000. Mr. Hines conducted bi-monthly two-day sales meetings with all of the sales managers and office administrators to discuss their sales progress. Managers were expected to discuss their completed and forecast sales. Mr. Hines required managers to stand before the group to report on their progress and discuss any issues with quotas or goals based on month-to-date, quarter-to-date, and year-to-date expectations. Mr. Hines also considered "sales in the pipeline," or anticipated sales, to help determine sales trends for the next 90 days and in evaluating sales personnel. In addition, Mr. Hines conducted weekly sales calls with the sales managers to review their sales progress. During the calls, sales managers were to identify which sales they believed had a strong, "95 percent chance," of closing. Mr. Hines also discussed the performance of each individual sales representative on a manager's team during the calls. The discussions included examination of reasons for non-performance. Around the time of the reorganization, Mr. Hines transferred Senior Account Executive Tina Vargas in the Ocala territory from Mr. Arritt's team to Ms. Gleason's team. Mr. Hines made this transfer, in part, to help Ms. Gleason achieve her headcount and sales quotas. At the time of the transfer, Vargas expected to complete a large, one-time $320,000 sale on which she had been working. Mr. Hines anticipated that this sale would help Ms. Gleason achieve her sales quotas. Ms. Vargas was not located in the Daytona Beach/Melbourne territory. But Mr. Hines expected that Ms. Vargas would require minimal supervision because she was an experienced sales representative. Other managers also supervised sales representatives in multiple or large territories. For example, Cecil Harrelson supervised sales representatives in four areas. They were Orlando, Melbourne, Daytona, and Gainesville. Sales Manager Derrick Stephenson supervised a substantially larger geographic area than Ms. Gleason. His area reached from Key West to West Palm Beach. After the reorganization, Ms. Gleason's sales productivity declined. She also was not maintaining her headcount. The other Sales Managers experienced the same problems initially. But they recovered from the changes. Ms. Gleason never did. For the seven-month period of April through October, Ms. Gleason's record of attaining her quota was as follows: April - 35% or $70,867 in sales May - 196% or $385,452 in sales (Due to Ms. Vargas joining the team with a pending sale; 23% without Ms. Vargas.) June - 31% or $61,136 in sales July - 8% or $12,948 in sales August - 12% or $19,521 in sales September - 11% or $18,261 in sales October - 23% or $36,811 in sales During that same period, Ms. Gleason was the lowest performing sales manager in July (19 points less than the next lowest), August (14 points less than the next lowest), September (33 points less than the next lowest), and October (6 points less than the next lowest). She was the second lowest in June when Mr. Comancho was the lowest with 25% attainment compared to Ms. Gleason's 31%. The attainment percentages for all of the sales managers varied. Each had good months and bad months. After April and May, Ms. Gleason, however, had only bad months. For the months June through October, Ms. Gleason was the only sales manager who did not achieve 50% attainment at least twice, with two exceptions. They exceptions were Mr. Comancho and Mr. Rodham. Mr. Comancho chose to return to an account executive position after Mr. Hines spoke to him about his performance. Mr. Rodham joined Ricoh in October and attained 52% of quota that month. In addition to steadily failing to meet 50% of her quota, Ms. Gleason failed to maintain a full headcount for the same period of time. No male sales managers in Ricoh's East Florida Marketplace had similar deficiencies in meeting sales quota. There is no evidence that any male sales managers in Ricoh's East Florida Marketplace had similar failures to maintain headcount. There is no evidence of sales manager productivity or headcount maintenance for any of Ricoh's other markets. Ms. Gleason tried to improve her headcount by hiring additional sales personnel. She conducted a job fair with the assistance of Ricoh's recruiter. They identified 19 applicants for further consideration and second interviews. Mr. Hines reviewed and rejected all 19. They did not meet his requirement for applicants to have outside sales experience and a history of working on a commission basis. Ms. Gleason was aware of Mr. Hines' requirements. But she interpreted them more loosely than he did. Mr. Hines helped Ms. Gleason's efforts to improve her headcount by transferring four sales representatives to her team. At Ms. Gleason's request, Mr. Hines also reconsidered his rejection of one candidate, Susan Lafue, and permitted Ms. Gleason to hire her. Still Ms. Gleason was unable to reach the expected headcount. David Herrick, one of the individuals who Mr. Hines assigned to Ms. Gleason's team, had already been counseled about poor performance. Mr. Hines directed Ms. Gleason to work with Mr. Herrick until he sold something. This was a common practice with newer sales representatives. Mr. Herrick had also been assigned to male sales managers. Mr. Hines asked Ms. Gleason and Mr. Herrick to bring him business cards from their sales visits. He often did this to verify sales efforts. After Mr. Hines reviewed the cards, he threw them in the trash. But he first confirmed that Ms. Gleason had the information she needed from the cards. Mr. Hines often threw cards away after reviewing them to prevent sales representatives providing the same card multiple times. Ricoh's Human Resources Policy establishes a series of steps for disciplinary action. The first is to provide an employee a verbal warning. The next two steps are written warnings before taking disciplinary action. Mr. Hines gave Ms. Gleason a verbal warning about her performance. He spoke to her about improving sales production and headcount. Ms. Gleason's performance did not improve despite her efforts. Later, Mr. Hines gave Ms. Gleason a written warning in a counseling document dated August 31, 2009. The document stated that her performance had not been acceptable. The counseling memorandum directed Ms. Gleason to reach 65% of her quota. It also said that she was expected to maintain a minimum of seven people on her team and work in the field with her sales representatives at least four days a week. Finally the memorandum advised that failure to perform as directed would result in "being moved to sales territory." Around the end of August 2009, Mr. Hines began counseling Israel Camacho, a male, about his performance. Mr. Comancho decided to return to an account executive position. In September Ms. Gleason achieved 11% of her quota. She also did not maintain her headcount. September 24, 2009, Mr. Hines gave Ms. Gleason a second written counseling memorandum. It too said that her performance was unacceptable. The memorandum required her to produce 80% of her quota and maintain a minimum of seven people on her team. It also cautioned that failure to meet the requirements would result in "being moved to sales territory." Ms. Gleason acknowledges that she understood that if she did not perform to the expected levels that she could be demoted. After the written warning of September 24, 2009, Ms. Gleason's performance continued to be unacceptable. For October, Ms. Gleason had $23,811 in sales for a total attainment of 23% of quota. Again, she did not maintain her team's headcount. Sometime during the June through October period, Mr. Hines criticized Ms. Gleason's management style, saying that she "coddled" her personnel too much. He also directed her to read the book "Who Moved My Cheese" and discuss it with him and consider changing her management style. Mr. Hines often recommended management books to all managers, male or female. There is no persuasive evidence that Ms. Gleason is the only person he required to read a recommended book and discuss it with him. Mr. Hines' comments and the reading requirement were efforts to help Ms. Gleason improve her performance and management. During the June through October period, Ms. Gleason yawned during a manager meeting. She maintains that Mr. Hines' statement about her yawn differed from the words he spoke to a male manager who fell asleep in a meeting. The differences, she argues, demonstrated gender discrimination. They did not. In each instance Mr. Hines sarcastically commented on the manager's behavior in front of other employees. He made no gender references. And the comments were similar. Sometime during the June through October period Mr. Hines also assigned Ms. Gleason to serve in an "Ambassador" role. "Ambassadors" were part of a Ricoh initiative to develop ways to improve the customer experience. There is no evidence that males were not also required to serve as "Ambassadors." And there is no persuasive evidence that this assignment was anything other than another effort to improve Ms. Gleason's management performance. Also during the June through October period Ms. Gleason proposed hosting a team building event at a bowling alley. Someone in management advised her that the event could not be an official company sponsored event because the bowling alley served alcohol. Again, there is no evidence that males were subjected to different requirements or that the requirement was related to Ms. Gleason's gender. During this same period, Ms. Gleason received written and oral communications from co-workers commenting on her difficulties meeting Mr. Hines' expectations. They observed that she was having a hard time and that they had seen Mr. Hines treat others similarly before discharging them. Nothing indicates that the others were female. These comments amount to typical office chatter and indicate nothing more than what the counseling documents said: Mr. Hines was unhappy with Ms. Gleason's performance and was going to take adverse action if it did not improve. On November 12, 2009, Ms. Gleason sent an email to Rhonda McIntyre, Regional Human Resources Manager. Ms. Gleason spoke to Ms. McIntyre that same day about her concerns about Hines' management style. Ms. Gleason said she was afraid that she may lose her job and that she was being set up for failure. Ms. McIntyre asked Ms. Gleason to send her concerns in writing. Ms. Gleason did so on November 13, 2009. Ms. Gleason's e-mail raised several issues about Mr. Hines' management. But Ms. Gleason did not state in her email or her conversations that she was being discriminated against or treated differently because of her gender. Ms. Gleason never complained about gender discrimination to any Ricoh representative at any time. On December 1, 2009, Mr. Hines demoted Ms. Gleason from sales manager to senior account executive. He assigned her to work on Mr. Arritt's team. Ms. Gleason had no issues with Mr. Arritt and no objection to being assigned to his team. Mr. Hines has demoted male sales managers to account executive positions for failure to attain quotas or otherwise perform at expected levels. The male employees include Ed Whipper, Kim Hughes, and Michael Kohler. In addition, Mr. Comancho was the subject of counseling before he chose to return to an account executive position. After Mr. Hines demoted Ms. Gleason, he promoted Diego Pugliese, a male, to sales manager. He assigned Mr. Pugliese the same territory that Ms. Gleason had. When Mr. Hines assigned Ms. Gleason to Mr. Arritt's team, Mr. Hines instructed Mr. Arritt to give Ms. Gleason two territories with substantial "machines in field" (MIF) to buttress Ms. Gleason's opportunity to succeed in her new position. Mr. Arritt assigned Ms. Gleason the two territories that records indicated had the most MIF. Ms. Gleason asserts that the preceding account executives maintained the records for the area poorly and that the new territories had no greater MIF than other areas. That fact does not indicate any intent to discriminate against Ms. Gleason on account of her gender. In January 2010, after Ms. Gleason's demotion, Mr. Harrelson invited Ms. Gleason to attend a non-company sponsored, employees' poker party. She had been invited to other employee poker parties and attended some. Mr. Harrelson withdrew the invitation saying that Mr. Hines was attending and that Mr. Harrelson thought Ms. Gleason's presence would be uncomfortable. Mr. Harrelson did not say that Mr. Hines had made this statement. And Mr. Harrelson was not Ms. Gleason's supervisor. Nothing about the exchange indicates that Ms. Gleason's gender had anything to do with withdrawal of the invitation. The incident seems to be based upon the natural observation that Mr. Hines might be uncomfortable socializing with someone he had recently demoted. After her demotion, Ms. Gleason asked Mr. Arritt to go with her on a "big hit" sales call. Ms. Gleason claims that Mr. Arritt told her that Mr. Hines told him not to go on sales calls with her. That may have been Mr. Arritt's interpretation of what Mr. Hines said. Mr. Hines had told Mr. Arritt that because Ms. Gleason was an experienced sales representative Mr. Arritt should focus his efforts on the less experienced sales representatives on his team. This was a reasonable observation. There is no evidence indicating that Mr. Hines treated Ms. Gleason differently in this situation than he had similarly experienced males. Ms. Gleason brought this issue to Ms. McIntyre's attention. The issue was resolved. Mr. Hines told Mr. Arritt that if Ms. Gleason wanted more assistance then Mr. Arritt should attend meetings with Gleason and provide any other assistance she believed she needed. Ms. Gleason had no other issues with Mr. Hines during the remainder of her employment. On March 31, 2010, Ms. Gleason submitted a memorandum stating that she was resigning "effective immediately." There is no evidence of derogatory or harassing comments by Mr. Hines or any other Ricoh representative toward Ms. Gleason referring to gender. There is no evidence of sexually suggestive comments or actions by a Ricoh representative. There also is no evidence of physically intimidating or harassing actions by any Ricoh representative.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations deny the Petition of Tamara A. Gleason in FCHR Case Number 2010-01263. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kimberly A. Gilmour, Esquire 4179 Davie Road, Suite 101 Davie, Florida 33314 David A. Young, Esquire Fisher & Phillips LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1250 Orlando, Florida 32801 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an act of discrimination in employment based on age, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on December 11, 1951. She was employed by Respondent from 1977 until December 27, 1999, at which time Respondent terminated her. During the entire term of her employment, Petitioner has served as an outside sales representative. As an outside sales representative, Petitioner was typically assigned a territory within which she was to serve existing advertisers and develop new advertisers. Petitioner often helped customers prepare their advertisements and plan and budget their advertising campaigns. While employed with Respondent, Petitioner helped train Mr. Fine, who has been employed with Respondent for nearly 13 years. Mr. Fine is currently the National Advertising Director, but, during the time in question, served as the Broward Advertising Sales Manager, and, as such, he supervised Petitioner. He served as the Broward Advertising Sales Manager from September 1998 through February or March 2000. While Broward Advertising Sales Manager, Mr. Fine supervised eight sales representatives. Mr. Fine found that Petitioner was strong in persuasiveness, but weak at times when she displayed a negative attitude and sense of entitlement to her job and her way of doing her job. She also treated customers inconsistently. In February 1999, Mr. Fine disciplined Petitioner for her handling of an internal fax that the Broward office received from an employee of Respondent in another office. The fax was addressed to a member of management and contained salary information about five persons in the office. Petitioner happened to find the fax and revealed its contents to her coworkers before delivering it to the addressee. When Mr. Fine reprimanded Petitioner for her actions, she denied any wrongdoing. Next, Mr. Fine began receiving complaints from various of Petitioner's customers, mostly over a relatively short period of time. A marketing person at the Swap Shop complained that Petitioner was brusque in dealing with her. Another customer representative mentioned that Petitioner had criticized one of her coworkers in suggesting that the customer place all of its business with Petitioner. A similar situation arose with another customer, to whom Petitioner claimed that its outside sales representative handled only smaller accounts. A representative of the Florida Philharmonic Orchestra requested that Mr. Fine assign it a new outside sales representative because Petitioner raised her voice and talked down to its young, inexperienced marketing person. On June 29, 1999, Mr. Fine sent a memorandum to his supervisor, Donna Sasser, who was then Advertising Director. The memorandum describes Petitioner as "dynamite" and expresses concern as to when she "will blow and who she will hurt." At the time, Mr. Fine was concerned that Petitioner's actions might undermine morale among the other staff for whom he was responsible. Ms. Sasser advised Mr. Fine to communicate to Petitioner specific expectations in terms of job performance and customer interaction in particular. Mr. Fine met with Petitioner and detailed his problems with her job performance and his expectations for improvement. By memorandum dated July 30, 1999, Mr. Fine memorialized the meeting, including specific customer complaints, and warned that Petitioner's job "will end, even within the next few weeks, if you are unable to achieve the following: no additional customer complaints, monthly goals [met] on a consistent basis; positive, collaborative attitude with co-workers, customers, and managers; [and] acceptance of responsibility for what goes well and what does not go well." Petitioner resisted Mr. Fine's criticism. By memorandum dated August 22, 1999, she defended her actions by pointing to shortcomings elsewhere within Respondent. Significantly, the memorandum does not address the complaints about brusque, discourteous treatment of employees of customers. At this point, Mr. Fine, who was a young manager, was legitimately concerned about whether Petitioner's attitude would undermine his ability to do his job. Mr. Fine resolved to assess over the next three to six months whether Petitioner met the goals that he stated in the July 30 memorandum. In late October 1999, a representative of the Cleveland Clinic complained about Petitioner's handling of its account. The complaints included Petitioner's "flip attitude" and "lack of professionalism." Two months later, Mr. Fine received a more serious complaint because it involved a loss of revenue to Respondent and the advertiser. Due to some miscommunication, Respondent published the wrong advertisement for a customer. When the customer's representative telephoned Petitioner and complained, she blamed someone at the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel, who had supplied her the wrong advertisement for publication. When she did not call him back on the day that she had promised, the customer representative called Respondent, complained about the poor handling of the account, noted the reduction in advertising from his company over the past year as compared to the prior year, and requested a different outside sales representative. Mr. Fine consulted with Ms. Sasser and Janet Stone, the Human Relations specialist assigned to advertising. The three agreed that Respondent should terminate Petitioner. Their decision was submitted through four levels of management--up to the level of Publisher--and each level approved the decision before it was implemented. On December 27, 1999--six days after the receipt of the last complaint--Mr. Fine and Ms. Stone met with Petitioner and told her that she had been terminated. At the hearing, Petitioner presented evidence of a contemporaneous complaint about age discrimination that she had made to a Human Relations specialist who had since left the employment of Respondent. Respondent contested this assertion, but Petitioner's August 22 memorandum states that, as a "female over 40 I feel the harassment and stress that you have been putting on me is totally unnecessary." Although not a formal complaint concerning age discrimination, this memorandum is an early mention of Petitioner's age within the context of harassment. Based on the testimony of coworkers, Mr. Fine was a high-pressure manager, given to yelling, but he did not make age-related comments to Petitioner. Even if Petitioner had timely made comprehensive complaints about age discrimination, the record in this case does not support her claim that her termination was due to age discrimination. Mr. Fine hired two outside sales representatives over 40 years old, and the only other outside sales representative whom he fired was under 40 years old. More importantly, he treated employees the same without regard to age. Most importantly, Petitioner's job performance provided Mr. Fine with ample reason to fire her. Without regard to the quality of the support that Petitioner received, customer satisfaction is paramount in advertising. In a competitive environment, Mr. Fine justifiably sought satisfaction of all customers, not just favored customers. Mr. Fine could not reasonably allow Petitioner to continue to treat discourteously representatives of advertisers, regardless of the merits of her claims of inadequate support. Past evaluations suggest that interpersonal relations was never Petitioner's strength. Despite an obvious talent at advertising sales and considerable experience, Petitioner's frustrations with the perceived incompetence of her coworkers and customers' employees weakened her interpersonal skills beyond a critical point, so that her other strengths no longer offset this important deficit.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jan Hall-Szugye 3834 Panther Creek Road Clyde, North Carolina 28721 Ellen M. Leibovitch Adorno & Yoss, P.A. 700 South Federal Highway, Suite 200 Boca Raton, Florida 33432
